• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

  • Total voters
    34
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I feel we have the right to know medical history that is relevant to their ability to do the job. A panel of non-partisan, or at least bi-partisan, physicians should determine what that is.
 
No. We don't have a right to that sort of private information.

Regardless of the public pressure.
 
Last edited:
"Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?"

no of course not
like any other job that requires an increased physical or mental load, there should be a health evaluation. If you pass you can be a candidate for the job, if not, then you cant but at no time is that the public's "right to know".
Im a test engineer, i needed to be evaluated for my job to be a candidate but thats between HR and the physicians. At no time is that info for my co workers or anybody else. Even people that do get the information simply get a pass or fail status.
 
radcen said:
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
Click to expand...

That and medical history that might throw a light on the candidate's ethics.
 
AGENT J said:
"Do citizens have the right to know a Presidential candidate's health status?"

no of course not
like any other job that requires an increased physical or mental load, there should be a health evaluation. If you pass you can be a candidate for the job, if not, then you cant but at no time is that the public's "right to know".
Im a test engineer, i needed to be evaluated for my job to be a candidate but thats between HR and the physicians. At no time is that info for my co workers or anybody else. Even people that do get the information simply get a pass or fail status.
Click to expand...
I think this is different from your example because it is precisely the citizens that are doing the hiring.
 
radcen said:
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
Click to expand...

The law says No. Next question..............
 
radcen said:
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
Click to expand...

Interesting...

Do we ask a person's health for an office job? Pilots etc. where there is an immediate risk if something happens OK.

The US constitution provides for a continuance in office should a president die...however I believe more have been shot than died of natural causes in office.
 
joG said:
That and medical history that might throw a light on the candidate's ethics.
Click to expand...
That's kind of why I included the part about having an STD decades earlier. I had to stop and think. I concluded that people change over time, and a person at age 60 is probably not the same person they were at age 20.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Interesting...

Do we ask a person's health for an office job? Pilots etc. where there is an immediate risk if something happens OK.

The US constitution provides for a continuance in office should a president die...however I believe more have been shot than died of natural causes in office.
Click to expand...

Warren Harding and William Henry Harrison, and FDR being the exceptions
 
Fearandloathing said:
Interesting...

Do we ask a person's health for an office job? Pilots etc. where there is an immediate risk if something happens OK.

The US constitution provides for a continuance in office should a president die...however I believe more have been shot than died of natural causes in office.
Click to expand...
There is controversy whether Woodrow Wilson had a stroke while in office and was hidden away and actually not governing while he recuperated. There have been concerns over Reagan's last year or so and potential Alzheimers. Just because it hasn't happened much doesn't mean it never will happen.
 
radcen said:
I think this is different from your example because it is precisely the citizens that are doing the hiring.
Click to expand...

No I don't buy that at all for access to private info. There is no "right" to it. If they are allowed to be a candidate then we know they passed thats enough, no details are needed.(let me be clear though, if there is no evaluation process like this behind the scenes there most definitely should be, i just dont support the release of any info besides pass/fail)
You technically hire everybody you pay for jobs in many regards contractors, doctors, mechanics etc? I dont have a right to their private info either. They have qualifications/certification/licensing they have to have/meet and that's it.
 
AGENT J said:
No I don't buy that at all for access to private info. There is no "right" to it. If they are allowed to be a candidate then we know they passed thats enough, no details are needed.(let me be clear though, if there is no evaluation process like this behind the scenes there most definitely should be, i just dont support the release of any info besides pass/fail)
You technically hire everybody you pay for jobs in many regards contractors, doctors, mechanics etc? I dont have a right to their private info either. They have qualifications/certification/licensing they have to have/meet and that's it.
Click to expand...
I would be fine with pass/fail. I do feel the citizens have a right* to know that much... is the person physically (and possibly mentally) capable right now and are there lingering issues that might cause an issue in the foreseeable future.

*-See disclaimer in post #1.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Warren Harding and William Henry Harrison, and FDR being the exceptions
Click to expand...

I keep wanting top add McKinley to that, but he was shot in Buffalo, N.Y. [no president or candidate has visited since] I think I mix it up because his successor, Teddy Roosevelt was also shot, but was only wounded
 
radcen said:
There is controversy whether Woodrow Wilson had a stroke while in office and was hidden away and actually not governing while he recuperated. There have been concerns over Reagan's last year or so and potential Alzheimers. Just because it hasn't happened much doesn't mean it never will happen.
Click to expand...


Questions or conspiracy theories. Just because somebody made it up it doesn't mean it's real. Unless you have evidence the country suffered in some way, there's absolutely no point there other than a rumor.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Questions or conspiracy theories. Just because somebody made it up it doesn't mean it's real. Unless you have evidence the country suffered in some way, there's absolutely no point there other than a rumor.
Click to expand...
Dismissing it because it's unproven is weak. Even if made up, it's not implausible. It should be a concern to people because it's not far-fetched and it could happen.
 
radcen said:
I would be fine with pass/fail. I do feel the citizens have a right* to know that much... is the person physically (and possibly mentally) capable right now and are there lingering issues that might cause an issue in the foreseeable future.

*-See disclaimer in post #1.
Click to expand...

Pass/fail im am fine with and it should be a requirement, if i have needed them for my jobs political officials should also.

Then again on a semi related topic there are many comedians out there have skits that ask questions about, "how come we drug test janitors and not brain surgeons? I don't care if billy is high while buffing the floor but I do care if dave is high well operating on my kids brain." "why does sally at dairy queen who just makes my sundays get tested twice a year but a mayor doesnt"

they make a good point actually, on average, it seems we seem to automatically distrust the stereotypical lower end jobs and trust the higher in jobs. There are acceptations of course pilots and what not but as a country/policy we seem inconsistent in this regard. Political figures should definitely be evaluated and drug tested.
 
radcen said:
Dismissing it because it's unproven is weak. Even if made up, it's not implausible. It should be a concern to people because it's not far-fetched and it could happen.
Click to expand...

"even if made up..."

Get your self a tin foil hat. It's not impossible alien beings could abduct the president, or be eaten by a giant mutant mosquito.


Hell, a meteor could wipe out DC....

wait, that would be a good thing
 
Fearandloathing said:
radcen said:
Fearandloathing said:
Questions or conspiracy theories. Just because somebody made it up it doesn't mean it's real. Unless you have evidence the country suffered in some way, there's absolutely no point there other than a rumor.
Click to expand...
Dismissing it because it's unproven is weak. Even if made up, it's not implausible. It should be a concern to people because it's not far-fetched and it could happen.
Click to expand...
"even if made up..."

Get your self a tin foil hat. It's not impossible alien beings could abduct the president, or be eaten by a giant mutant mosquito.

Hell, a meteor could wipe out DC....

wait, that would be a good thing
Click to expand...
Slow down, Skippy. "Made up" was YOUR phrase, not mine. I was merely responding to YOUR post.

Note: You weren't clear, but I interpreted your post, and your knee-jerk dismissal, to be regarding Woodrow Wilson's suspected stroke.
 
radcen said:
That's kind of why I included the part about having an STD decades earlier. I had to stop and think. I concluded that people change over time, and a person at age 60 is probably not the same person they were at age 20.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree. On the other hand, a person that was corrupt at 30 and got away with it over and again will very likely have developed better techniques but will be more convinced that corruption pays. ;)

PS: Not that that will usually be in the medical report. ;)
 
Cardinal said:
I think we have a right to highly generalized information such as "I, Doctor Von Niemenschplitzer, give the Presidential candidate a clean bill of health" and that's kind of it. Anything more is a blatant invasion of privacy. And let's face it, conspiracy theorists won't believe any medical report that doesn't have an awful conclusion.
Click to expand...
I think I would be fine with a respected doctor giving such a report, provided we had some way of knowing that an exam really did take place, but unfortunately you are correct... the whack job extremists wouldn't be satisfied even if they stuck their own fingers up the guy's butt and did the prostate exam themselves.
 
radcen said:
Do citizens have the right* to know a Presidential candidate's health status?

I think, "Yes, we do, but..."

We have the right to know their immediate health status. How they could possibly be affected while in office.

I do not think a woman's birth history in the past is important. I do not think a person's tonsillectomy 30+ years ago is important. I do not care if they were born with jaundice 60 years ago. I do not even care if they had an STD at age 22 and got it taken care of.

On the other hand, while it didn't affect his Presidency, I do think the people had the right to know more about FDR's polio (may have been something else, but that's not the point). Although, to be fair, he might not have been elected/re-elected had they not downplayed it.

While I am not a big fan of a candidate feeling pressured to release tax returns, I do feel there should be a serious pressure to release current medical status. Not a law, just public pressure.

*- Don't get hung up on the word "right". If you can't figure out the context of the thread, maybe you should be using a Etch-a-Sketch instead of a computer.
Click to expand...

Has this really been an issue before? FDR served for twelve years, so I'm going to say his polio wasn't a huge deal.

(Yes, I pulled a full 180 on my initial response).
 
I could just imagine it getting corrupted.

And, BTW, when is the last time a president died of natural causes in office? Reagan came closest with Alzheimers, albeit his handlers kept the progression quiet until he was out of office. Who was steering the ship on his bad days?

We are a risk taking country. We run our country on the back of people who take risks. It's not surprising we don't worry about candidate's heath when we see ourselves as invincible.

If we had a crystal ball, a problem we should address is that every one has a "flame-out" stage. For some it's in the 60's others in the 90's. It's not the energy we see on television that counts, it's the energy you have when you roll up your sleeves and get to work that counts.

It's much easier to see a person from the private sector as a super energized person because they have to be one to survive. People in the top tiers of government are invisible and you only see what their handlers let you see.
 
Cardinal said:
Has this really been an issue before? FDR served for twelve years, so I'm going to say his polio wasn't a huge deal.

(Yes, I pulled a full 180 on my initial response).
Click to expand...
But they went to great lengths to hide it as much as possible. Was their fear justified, or was it warranted?

Personally, I don't think polio would be a big deal. I would be more concerned about heart issues*, etc.

*-I don't count Cheney because I don't believe most people vote for VP other than maybe as a potential successor, which is why a Presidential candidate's health might be a concern to some, but Bush II was in good health.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom